The Queen v Wrobel - [2007] NZCA 566

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA465/07
[2007] NZCA 566
THE QUEEN
v
MAREK KRZYSZTOF WROBEL
Hearing:21 November 2007

Court:Glazebrook, Williams and MacKenzie JJ
Counsel:R G Glover for Appellant

F E Guy Kidd for Respondent

Judgment:10 December 2007 at 3pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

THE APPEALS AGAINST CONVICTION ARE DISMISSED.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Williams J)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
[1] The appellant, Mr Wrobel, is an admitted, committed, thief. Indeed, he says his thefts and other offending have a signature modus operandi in that:
·He always offends at crowded venues such as camping grounds. His offending is therefore at its busiest during the Christmas/New Year holiday period;
·He travels between such venues in a rental car, paid for in cash;
·He only ever steals relatively small sums of money or readily cashable vouchers, even if wallets, cheque books, credit cards, jewellery and other valuable items are there for the stealing;
·With his hooked wire and sandpaper device and his gloves, he is adept at unlocking locked vehicles swiftly and undetectably; and
·He never damages the vehicles from which he steals.

[2] Given:
·his modus operandi;
·that he pleaded guilty to a number of charges of theft and unlawful interference with motor vehicles as a result of his offending between 29 December 2005 ‑ 1 January 2006 in the northern part of the South Island; and
·he says the other offending with which he was charged contravenes his modus operandi

Mr Wrobel appeals to this Court against his conviction on those other counts on the ground the evidence did not meet the standard of proof on those charges.
Facts
Offending
[3]       Mr Glover, counsel for Mr Wrobel, told us the appellant is of Polish origin but is now an Australian citizen who visits New Zealand over the Christmas/New Year period in order to offend. He was in this country between 26 December 2002 ‑ 15 January 2003 during which, travelling about the South Island in a rental car, he stole from over 600 vehicles. However, because only 165 incidents were reported to Police, it was only on those that he was prosecuted for theft and unlawful interference with motor vehicles. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment, being released on 16 November 2005 on parole until 18 May 2006.
[4]       On 29 December 2005 Mr Wrobel travelled to Picton by ferry. He hired a rental car on arrival, paying in cash.
[5]       Between the date of his arrival in the South Island and his arrest in Christchurch on 4 January 2006, Mr Wrobel committed a number of offences: he told the Police they arrested him “Before I got to spread my wings”. When Judge Saunders dealt with an application under s 344A of the Crimes Act 1961 on 8 June 2007, his judgment noted the indictment against Mr Wrobel originally contained 44 counts of theft and unlawful interference with motor vehicles.
[6]       Earlier, on 29 March 2007, Mr Wrobel had pleaded guilty to 25…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading The Queen v Wrobel

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Wrobel [2007] NZCA 566
Case: [2007] NZCA 566
Decision Date: 10 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in The Queen v Wrobel involves the appellant, Marek Krzysztof Wrobel, contesting his convictions for theft and unlawful interference with motor vehicles. Wrobel, an Australian citizen of Polish origin, had previously pleaded guilty to theft and unlawful interference with motor vehicles committed between 29 December 2005 and 1 January 2006 in the northern part of New Zealand's South Island. However, he appeals against his conviction on additional counts, arguing that the evidence did not meet the standard of proof required for those charges.

The legal issues the Court had to decide centred on whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Wrobel committed the additional offences. Specifically, the Court needed to assess whether the similar fact evidence of Wrobel's modus operandi and the circumstances of the crimes were enough to establish his guilt for the contested counts. The appeal hinged on the interpretation of similar fact evidence and its admissibility in establishing identity and proof of the contested charges.

The Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered by Williams J, held that the Judge’s conclusions were supported by the evidence. The Court found that the similarities in the modus operandi and the geographical proximity of the offences were significant factors. The Court was particularly influenced by the consistency in the method of offending, the lack of damage to the vehicles, and the concentration on cash or cashable vouchers. The Court rejected Wrobel's claims that the evidence did not meet the required standard of proof, finding that the Judge's assessment of the evidence was reasonable and sustainable. The Court concluded that the Judge did not err in law or reach conclusions that were unsustainable based on the evidence.

The final orders of the Court were that the appeals against conviction were dismissed. This means that Wrobel's convictions for the contested counts were upheld, and no grounds for overturning those convictions were found.

Orders